Opinion
6422 Index 103951/12
05-01-2018
Anthony GORDON, Plaintiff, Martina Gordon, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 476 BROADWAY REALTY CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Ronald A. Hollander, Hastings–on–Hudson, for appellant. Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, New York (Beatrice Lesser of counsel), for respondents.
Ronald A. Hollander, Hastings–on–Hudson, for appellant.
Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, New York (Beatrice Lesser of counsel), for respondents.
Renwick, J.P., Tom, Andrias, Webber, Kahn, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered March 23, 2017, which denied plaintiff Martina Gordon's (plaintiff) motion to renew defendants' motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim for ejectment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff failed to satisfy her heavy burden on this post-appeal renewal motion to show that, by exercising due diligence, she could not have obtained the purported new facts at the time of the original motion (see Matter of Weinberg , 132 A.D.2d 190, 522 N.Y.S.2d 511 [1st Dept. 1987], lv dismissed 71 N.Y.2d 994, 529 N.Y.S.2d 277, 524 N.E.2d 879 [1988] ). In any event, the allegedly newly discovered documents would not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221[e][2] ). Plaintiff's arguments in relation to the documents require impermissible speculation as to what the mortgagee would have done if defendants had been more timely in notifying it of the cooperative's proposed action to terminate plaintiffs' proprietary lease, as called for under a recognition agreement, and whether plaintiffs would have heeded any advice from the mortgagee about amending their conduct, which they exhibited no willingness to do before the lease was terminated (see generally Sherwood Group v. Dornbush, Mensch, Mandelstam & Silverman , 191 A.D.2d 292, 594 N.Y.S.2d 766 [1st Dept. 1993] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.